Do We Own?

[genkaus]

- exactly. If you can't buy it, you can happily go avail yourself of jack shit.

The same problem would apply in priority use model. After all, you can't expect to have use rights to everything.

Any principle in use for contract law is applicable. After all, getting that "winning bid" to generate a claim has to be made official.

Its not. Because ownership is a basic principle within contract law. Therefore, any principles within contract law pursuant to ownership would not be applicable.

Why, under the ownership model logging rights aren't always available either - even if you own the property.

Because it is assumed that it was originally government property and thus only government would be able issue or curtail rights associated with it. Since, under priority usage, the concept of property doesn't apply all forms of usage and therefore all rights pursuant to that usage would automatically be valid.

No more their property than ours, no. They'd have their own contract to fulfill as administrators. I don;t see why logging rights -have- to be included in priority use (though I would...but I'm a stickler...I'd insist that the logging be sustainable..lol).

Right now, the government is deemed the ultimate owner and therefore the ultimate authority as to the usage of the natural resource. So, it can grant or refuse permission regarding its use by issuing logging rights. Under priority use, there is no ultimate authority to declare what is or isn't allowed (or if you say there is, then what is the legal basis for that authority?). By default, all forms of usage are allowed. Therefore, logging rights automatically become a part of it.